Bradley Manning verdict

[mistercrabby]

more concerned with a system that granted Manning a security clearance and put him in a position to download and distribute gigabytes of secure data.

True dat. See my previous post.

 

[Zargon]

Yep, you always want a pimply 23 year old PFC with an unsettled gender identity deciding whether to release sensative diplomatic and military secrets. While you're at it, give him the nuclear launch codes.:biggrin:

nice deflection but none of that has any bearing, especially being pimply

thats as hilarious as the asshole NSA guys begging for hackers to help them in one interview then calling them basement dwelling losers whose opinions dont matter in about


he showed a better moral compass than his commanders by doing something about the extraneous civilian casualties

 

[palehorse]

he showed a better moral compass than his commanders by doing something about the extraneous civilian casualties

So what about the several hundred thousand classified documents he leaked that had nothing AT ALL to do with civilian casualties? Oh yeah, whoops!

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

There is a difference between having nothing; and being able to reveal information.

Manning and Snowdon revealed information that they should not have.
One is on the run; the other heading for prison for life.

Neither is a situation that I desire.
You apparently feel that it is okay to allow people to get killed based on your principles or right/wrong; I do not.

Bullshit..don't put words in my mouth. Once again you show your continued ignorance. I have never claimed that what either person did was legal. So you going to lie about me as well now? Typical troll.....deflect and attack the messenger, just SOP for another bigoted troll in P&N here.

I know truth is hard for you, since bigots like you "believe" what you want, without regard to facts, but when this first came out, the goverment paraded dozens of people on the news broadcasts all claiming "many people will die" without any proof of course. Nice propoganda hit job huh? Now you have bought into that hook, line and sinker with no proof. GG.

Then a couple of months later, the government quietly had to admit they had no evidence that anyone was killed. Oops....guess you missed that huh? Oh right, it was something you didn't want to accept, so you probably just ignored it.

So again, proof or STFU with your lying. And while you are at it, link to proof that I said what they did was OK, or STFU and apologize for that for that personal attack. Thought that was against forum rules?

How pathethic that someone you, continues with this crap.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

What makes you think that such information, if it exists, is (or should be) available to the general public?

It's really easy to accuse him of lying when you know that's it's impossible for him to back up his claim without access to, and the revealing of, classified data.

In other words, you're both guessing; so, neither of you can claim to be right, or accuse the other of being wrong.

You and EK really like to live in ignorance huh? It's funny that a 10sec google search is beyond yours and his capabilities. Truly amazing.

For the logically challenged (AKA you and EK), I will post this:
Link

It's following Manning's trial....from TFA:

The military's position took another hit Wednesday, as the former brigadier general who headed the Information Review Task Force investigating the leaks said that he had never heard that a source named in the Afghan war logs was killed

Ooops!!!!! Several years later, the military has to admit no one died. So I will await your and EK's thread demanding an investigation why and how all those government talking heads went on the news publically and loudly proclaiming that many people would die. You will post that right? I mean, you just found out that the government lied to you (again) so where is your faux rage?

Another quote from the then SecDef:

The revelation supports an assessment by former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates that the rhetoric about the supposed harm caused by the leaks was "fairly significantly overwrought."

That is your old boss that said that right? Was he lying too?

You and Eaglekeeper are free to google this yourself...plenty of links were found via google....so just how is it that you two continue to believe a lie when the facts are out there? Hmmmmmmm, gee I wonder why?

 

[palehorse]

You and EK really like to live in ignorance huh? It's funny that a 10sec google search is beyond yours and his capabilities. Truly amazing.

For the logically challenged (AKA you and EK), I will post this:
Link

It's following Manning's trial....from TFA:

Ooops!!!!! Several years later, the military has to admit no one died. So I will await your and EK's thread demanding an investigation why and how all those government talking heads went on the news publically and loudly proclaiming that many people would die. You will post that right? I mean, you just found out that the government lied to you (again) so where is your faux rage?

Another quote from the then SecDef:

That is your old boss that said that right? Was he lying too?

You and Eaglekeeper are free to google this yourself...plenty of links were found via google....so just how is it that you two continue to believe a lie when the facts are out there? Hmmmmmmm, gee I wonder why?

I actually never stated my own opinion on the subject, so you know where you can stick your self-righteousness.

That said, Manning's indiscriminate leaks likely did more to harm our current and future relationships (in terms of establishing trust, or now the lack thereof), than they did to endanger people's lives... directly.

IOW, their impact on operations and relations was measurably severe, but they did not necessarily result in source deaths -- IF you take those leaders' statements and testimonials at face value.

For the sake of argument, as an exercise, can you think of any reason those leaders might have lied?

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

I actually never stated my own opinion on the subject, so you know where you can stick your self-righteousness.

That said, Manning's indiscriminate leaks likely did more to harm our current and future relationships (in terms of establishing trust, or now the lack thereof), than they did to endanger people's lives... directly.

IOW, their impact on operations and relations was measurably severe, but they did not necessarily result in source deaths -- IF you take those leaders' statements and testimonials at face value.

For the sake of argument, as an exercise, can you think of any reason those leaders might have lied?

Wow..so now military officers under oath at a court martial are lying.......just how much further into the rabbit hole are you going to go to justify that you were wrong? Amazing the lengths people will go to not have to admit they were wrong. Truly amazing.

So what is your explanation for all those talking heads that claimed people died when they were wrong? That OK with you I guess? You like the government to feed false propaganda to you?

 

[palehorse]

Wow..so now military officers under oath at a court martial are lying.......just how much further into the rabbit hole are you going to go to justify that you were wrong? Amazing the lengths people will go to not have to admit they were wrong. Truly amazing.

So what is your explanation for all those talking heads that claimed people died when they were wrong? That OK with you I guess? You like the government to feed false propaganda to you?

I believe that most (if not all) of those talking heads were simply guessing and making predictions, and most of that was done BEFORE the assessment results were ever discussed in public (or at trial).

Are you claiming that it would be unusual for political appointees and senior leaders to lie?

I'm not claiming that sources did, in fact, die; since, like you, I don't really know either way.

So, how was I "wrong"? In defending the other poster's position, I was simply pointing out that none of us knows the whole truth -- everyone is just guessing. Unless, of course, you're claiming to have inside knowledge on the subject?

Once again, though, the real damage was to current and future intelligence operations and international relations -- in terms of establishing and/or maintaining trust -- with both foreign governments and potential intel sources. (This much is common sense and undeniable).

 

[Fern]

Can any of Manning's supporters provide a list of the positives for us as a result of his leaks?

Honest question since I've never heard of a single one. All I recall is that he potentially put people at risk and released some embarrassing and somewhat juvenile State Dept communications. I also heard claims about some info that was supposed to released about a bank that would be 'big news', but never actually heard or saw any reports about it on TV.

Fern

 

[unokitty]

Can any of Manning's supporters provide a list of the positives for us as a result of his leaks?
...
Fern

I'm not a Manning supporter. But I don't think that Manning is the problem. From my perspective, he's just a symptom. The vulnerabilities that he took advantage of, like the vulnerabilities that Snowden took advantage of, were huge and egregious. It was just a matter of time. If it wasn't Manning and Snowden, it would have been two others...

Four Points
One
I looked through many of the 'secret' documents posted at Wikiileaks. I didn't see anything that looked compromising to me. In fact, banal is the term that comes to mind.

According to the Information Security Oversight Office’s Report to the President., in FY 2009 over 59 million documents were classified. I've held a clearance, most of the classified stuff that I saw was crap.

I have a letter from the VA about them loosing my personnel records. If the VA can't protect their own personnel records, does anyone seriously think that the government can protect over 50 million new classified records annually?

Reality is if you classify everything, then no one has any way of knowing what is really important and needs to be protected vs. what is just crap from middle level bureaucrats attempting to make sure that their incompetence never becomes public.

Two
Manning, like Major Hasan was a product of the US Army system. Both received and passed their training both passed their vettings. Putting those two screwballs in jail won't change the system. It won't fix any vulnerabilities and it won't keep the next screwballs from receiving their training and their classifications.

Three -- The Gary McKinnon Case
In 2002, Gary McKinnon was accoused of perpetrating the "biggest military computer hack of all time. He did this by writing a simple Perl Script that tried various default passwords. His purpose was to find evidence that the US knew about and was communicating with aliens.

"McKinnon has admitted in many public statements that he obtained unauthorised access to computer systems in the United States including those mentioned in the United States indictment. He claims his motivation, drawn from a statement made before the Washington Press Club on 9 May 2001 by "The Disclosure Project", was to find evidence of UFOs, antigravity technology, and the suppression of "free energy", all of which he claims to have proven through his actions.[41][42]

In an interview televised on the BBC's Click programme,[43] McKinnon claimed that he was able to get into the military's networks simply by using a Perl script that searched for blank passwords; in other words his report suggests that there were computers on these networks with the default passwords active."

I believe that the US justice system spent ten years trying to get the autistic Mr. McKinnon extradited from Great Briton.

If an autistic Brit knows that you use default passwords on your systems, does anyone think that well funded, highly motivated, foreign government intelligence agencies don't?

Four - John Walker
From 1968 till 1985, the US Navy's John Walker sold US cryptographic key materials to the Russians. The Navy never had a clue. It wasn't until his wife turned him in for not giving her enough money that he was caught.

Or, as Chief Warrant Officer Walker said at his trial "Kmart has better security than the US Navy.

I'm not even going to mention the KGB mole that the Russians had at the FBI. You know, the one that was the special agent in charge of making sure that the Russians didn't have a mole at the FBI?

So, I don't think that putting Manning in the slammer will have any impact on US security at all. Nor do I think leaning on Assange will have any impact either.

As long as you're going to let bureaucrats classify documents to avoid accountability. And as long as you promote officers that use default passwords on their systems, you're not going to have security.

Fact is, the US isn't doing a very good job of securing their data. As long as that is the case, the status quo is going to reign.

And the status quo existed long before Bradley Manning...

Uno

 

[palehorse]

I just typed a reallllly long reply to the nonsense Uno wrote above; but, for some reason, the entire f'n post disappeared when I hit submit.

Fuck it, I'm not typing it all again... but, just so you know, your entire post is inaccurate and/or outdated rubbish.

 

[mistercrabby]

And none of it has to do with Manning, which is the point of the thread.

 

[unokitty]

I just typed a reallllly long reply to the nonsense Uno wrote above; but, for some reason, the entire f'n post disappeared when I hit submit.

Fuck it, I'm not typing it all again... but, just so you know, your entire post is inaccurate and/or outdated rubbish.

Everything in my post is supported by fact. The links are there.

Everyone can see for themselves. Anyone can check anything that I posted.

Everyone can make their own judgements.

I'm okay with the facts... If you aren't, then that is your problem.

Uno

 

[unokitty]

And none of it has to do with Manning, which is the point of the thread.

My point, as I mentioned, was that Manning was a symptom rather than a problem.

Fixing a symptom doesn't fix the problem.

If you define the problem as 'Bradley Manning' that is one thing.

On the other hand, if you define the problem as a systemic issue with the handling of classified information, that is another thing.

The other people I mention are meant to illustrate that the problem is systemic. And that it has existed for a long time.

I thought that that was relevant.

Uno

 

[werepossum]

My point, as I mentioned, was that Manning was a symptom rather than a problem.

Fixing a symptom doesn't fix the problem.

If you define the problem as 'Bradley Manning' that is one thing.

On the other hand, if you define the problem as a systemic issue with the handling of classified information, that is another thing.

The other people I mention are meant to illustrate that the problem is systemic. And that it has existed for a long time.

I thought that that was relevant.

Uno

I found it relevant, and interesting. Thanks!

A system that puts such a troubled young flake in reach of mounds of classified data is not a good system, period. A system that puts classified data on laptops it routinely loses is not a good system, period. Such a system needs to be thoroughly revamped. Were it an industrial corporation, it would long since have folded from sheer incompetence.

 

[mistercrabby]

I, Bradly Manning, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." or whatever.

 

[palehorse]

For Unokitty:

1. Manning leaked HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of classified documents. While many of those can be described as "banal," especially to the average civilian, there were countless others that included very sensitive information that absolutely compromised relations and current/future operations. I can assure you that our adversaries did not consider the vast majority of those documents "banal."

2. I agree that "the system" -- including some very specific individual leaders and peers -- failed to properly identify and mitigate the threats posed by both Manning and Hasan. In fact, I personally feel that many of the leaders involved in both cases are/were guilty of gross negligence.

3. In terms of computer network defense, the DoD has come a VERY long way since 2002. Simply put: good luck finding ANY DoD systems or portals that allow weak (or blank) passwords today. Dual-factor authentication, strong passwords, PKI, and a very robust perimeter defense system are now in place. Are there still some weak points? Of course! However, bringing up an old case from 2002 to illustrate the current security posture of the DoD systems is just plain silly.

4. The insider threat is both real and eternal. There will always be real human beings who wittingly or unwittingly bypass the security and counterintelligence apparatuses to fuck up the system in one way or another. The key is to more quickly identify and mitigate those threats before they cause real damage.

One solution is to continue building up effective CI and Insider Threat programs, while simultaneously providing simple and safe avenues to voice legitimate legal or ethical concerns (ie. whistle-blower protection programs and other IG functions)

Second, since both the external and internal adversaries will continue to leverage new technology to their advantage, we must never stop improving network defenses and the training given to those who man them.

And finally, we must SEVERELY punish those we do catch who wittingly commit treason and/or espionage against us -- which is why Manning needs to be locked up for the rest of his natural life (or executed).

---

That said, there is no such thing as perfect security, so we must remain eternally vigilant against those, of every sort, who would do us harm.

Note: I agree that we DO have a problem with over-classification, but it's going to take a very long time to break old habits in that regard. It's a cultural issue, within the IC, so I'm guessing (or just hoping) that it will just take time to slightly alter the mindsets of those who classify information.

Note2: ALL of the above must be done in accordance with the US Constitution -- no exceptions.

 

[werepossum]

For Unokitty:

1. Manning leaked HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of classified documents. While many of those can be described as "banal," especially to the average civilian, there were countless others that included very sensitive information that absolutely compromised relations and current/future operations. I can assure you that our adversaries did not consider the vast majority of those documents "banal."

2. I agree that "the system" -- including some very specific individual leaders and peers -- failed to properly identify and mitigate the threats posed by both Manning and Hasan. In fact, I personally feel that many of the leaders involved in both cases are/were guilty of gross negligence.

3. In terms of computer network defense, the DoD has come a VERY long way since 2002. Simply put: good luck finding ANY DoD systems or portals that allow weak (or blank) passwords today. Dual-factor authentication, strong passwords, PKI, and a very robust perimeter defense system are now in place. Are there still some weak points? Of course! However, bringing up an old case from 2002 to illustrate the current security posture of the DoD systems is just plain silly.

4. The insider threat is both real and eternal. There will always be real human beings who wittingly or unwittingly bypass the security and counterintelligence apparatuses to fuck up the system in one way or another. The key is to more quickly identify and mitigate those threats before they cause real damage.

One solution is to continue building up effective CI and Insider Threat programs, while simultaneously providing simple and safe avenues to voice legitimate legal or ethical concerns (ie. whistle-blower protection programs and other IG functions)

Second, since both the external and internal adversaries will continue to leverage new technology to their advantage, we must never stop improving network defenses and the training given to those who man them.

And finally, we must SEVERELY punish those we do catch who wittingly commit treason and/or espionage against us -- which is why Manning needs to be locked up for the rest of his natural life (or executed).

---

That said, there is no such thing as perfect security, so we must remain eternally vigilant against those, of every sort, who would do us harm.

Note: I agree that we DO have a problem with over-classification, but it's going to take a very long time to break old habits in that regard. It's a cultural issue, within the IC, so I'm guessing (or just hoping) that it will just take time to slightly alter the mindsets of those who collect, report, analyze, and/or ultimately classify information.

Note2: ALL of the above must be done in accordance with the US Constitution -- no exceptions.

Very well said. I think though that perhaps you mistook Unokitty's point. Or perhaps I did. What I took from it wasn't that Manning wasn't a problem or deserved to avoid punishment, but rather that compared to the system itself, Manning is insignificant because the system both poorly guards classified data and generates so much of it that Bradley Mannings are inevitable. Personally I'm fine with landing on Manning with both boots, and I think that has been done, but if we see Manning as THE problem to be solved, we guarantee that another Manning will come along shortly. This one threw a hissy fit because as a gay man he didn't fit in to the military world (even though other gay men fit in just fine.) Perhaps the next one will throw a hissy fit because of some ruling affecting military chaplains, or because abortion is covered as a military benefit, or because abortion ISN'T covered as a military benefit.

 

[palehorse]

Very well said. I think though that perhaps you mistook Unokitty's point. Or perhaps I did. What I took from it wasn't that Manning wasn't a problem or deserved to avoid punishment, but rather that compared to the system itself, Manning is insignificant because the system both poorly guards classified data and generates so much of it that Bradley Mannings are inevitable. Personally I'm fine with landing on Manning with both boots, and I think that has been done, but if we see Manning as THE problem to be solved, we guarantee that another Manning will come along shortly. This one threw a hissy fit because as a gay man he didn't fit in to the military world (even though other gay men fit in just fine.) Perhaps the next one will throw a hissy fit because of some ruling affecting military chaplains, or because abortion is covered as a military benefit, or because abortion ISN'T covered as a military benefit.

I wholeheartedly agree that both the problems, and any real solutions to said problems, are many!

That said, I truly believe they are currently attacking the problems from every angle. Some aspects receive more attention than others on any given day, for sure; but, that has more to do with internal arm wrestling over budget allocations, and politics, than anything else (which appears to be an eternal problem in and of itself ).

Edit: I'm not sure I agree that there is any direct correlation between the amount of classified data and the number of potential Bradley Mannings. Instead, I believe there will always be those who have grievances or just outright seek to harm the US; so, it's up to the in-place defenses (cyber, leadership, peers, CI, Insider Threat programs, etc) to identify and mitigate each new Manning that pops up before he/she does something stupid.

IOW, while over-classification may be a real issue, I still believe it's SLIGHTLY more important to limit (and monitor) access to classified information than it is to limit the amount of classified information itself.

 

[Pocatello]

Manning and Snowden are just a sign of things to come. More embarrassing leaks by some regular joes, who shouldn't be handling sensitive data from the first place.

 

[palehorse]

Manning and Snowden are just a sign of things to come. More embarrassing leaks by some regular joes, who shouldn't be handling sensitive data from the first place.

While I agree that those two asshats, specifically, could/should have been identified and removed before they struck, I really don't understand what you mean by "regular joes"...?

Both of them were trained intelligence professionals.

 

[Pocatello]

While I agree that those two asshats, specifically, could/should have been identified and removed before they struck, I really don't understand what you mean by "regular joes"...?

Both of them were trained intelligence professionals.

Yeah, aren't they all?

 

[palehorse]

Yeah, aren't they all?

That's why I asked what you meant by "regular joes"...? And as opposed to who/what?

 

[unokitty]

1. Manning leaked HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of classified documents. While many of those can be described as "banal," especially to the average civilian, there were countless others that included very sensitive information that absolutely compromised relations and current/future operations. I can assure you that our adversaries did not consider the vast majority of those documents "banal."
...
3. In terms of computer network defense, the DoD has come a VERY long way since 2002. Simply put: good luck finding ANY DoD systems or portals that allow weak (or blank) passwords today. Dual-factor authentication, strong passwords, PKI, and a very robust perimeter defense system are now in place. Are there still some weak points? Of course! However, bringing up an old case from 2002 to illustrate the current security posture of the DoD systems is just plain silly.
.

Regarding your first point. It's a basic security maxim that in order to be trusted you need to provide verification. You're stating that Manning 'absolutely compromised relations and current/future operations.' Did he? Can you verify that? Without verification, can you really expect anyone to believe you?

From my perspective, the damage that Manning did wasn't, as you seem to be alleging,in the discrete leaking of this or that document. If it was, you could point to a document that illustrates your allegation.

Rather, the damage that Manning did was in making it obvious that the US Army and the US State Department couldn't keep their confidential information confidential.

And isn't that the same problem as ten years ago with Gary McKinnon and the others that I referenced? The problem that you refereed to as 'just plain silly.'

Regarding your third point, you're welcome to feel secure with your two factor authentication and your 'robust defensive perimeter.'and your other techniques. But RSA uses two factor authentication and 'robust perimeter defences' as well.

That didn't keep RSA from getting hacked in spring 2011. If you like, you can see some of the attack details here.

Its not really a very sophisticated attack. Though, RSA's 'robust perimeter defences' let it go right through. And two factor authentication didn't help at all.

And I don't even want to talk about Titan Rain where Sandia Labs (you do know what they do at Sandia don't you?) got hacked along with many other sensitive government sites. None of your sophisticated authentication methods or their 'robust security perimeter' seemed to make a difference there. In fact, Sandia labs fired the analyst that discovered that they had been hacked. To the Sandia management, loosing information about nuclear weapons wasn't a problem, the public finding out that they had lost their confidential information was the problem.

The RSA and Titan Rain hacks illustrates that your confidence in 'robust perimeter defences' and sophisticated authentication methods is seriously misplaced.

Further with Snowden/Manning, and whoever else, there is plenty of evidence that the problem now is the same as it was in 2002. That is, some organizations can't keep their confidential information confidential.

Good security is hard. Good security requires objective observations. And it also involves accountability and being able to see where systemic vulnerabilities exist. If you can't do that, you'll never have security.

Denial is easy. If fact, denial can keep you from ever seeing that you have a problem.

Its been ten years and DOD still can't keep their confidential information confidential... Is that what you meant when you referred to the loss of confidential information in the McKinnon incident as silly? The same problem keeps happening over and over. That's silly to you?

Spreading your denial, spewing your vulgarities, and making your false allegations here doesn't change any of that. In fact, the case can be made that your denial makes people like Manning not only possible but inevitable.

It's okay though. Just act surprised when it happens again. Don't blame the Colonel of the training battalion that trained and passed Manning at his intelligence school. Don't blame the person, likely a contractor, that granted Manning his clearance. And don't blame the people at the DOD and the State Department that designed the intelligence data bases that enabled Private Manning to download gigabytes and gigabytes of data.

Oh, no there is no accountability to be found at the DOD, at their contractors, or at the State Department. Its all the PFCs fault.

LOL

Uno

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

I believe that most (if not all) of those talking heads were simply guessing and making predictions, and most of that was done BEFORE the assessment results were ever discussed in public (or at trial).

Are you claiming that it would be unusual for political appointees and senior leaders to lie?

I'm not claiming that sources did, in fact, die; since, like you, I don't really know either way.

So, how was I "wrong"? In defending the other poster's position, I was simply pointing out that none of us knows the whole truth -- everyone is just guessing. Unless, of course, you're claiming to have inside knowledge on the subject?

Once again, though, the real damage was to current and future intelligence operations and international relations -- in terms of establishing and/or maintaining trust -- with both foreign governments and potential intel sources. (This much is common sense and undeniable).

I would imagine when a senior Army office testifies under oath in a military trial and flat out says no one died, that no one died. (imagine that, huh?)

So are you seriously accusing a senior officer of perjury? Or is this another "hypothetical" handwave to try to cover that you and EK were 100% wrong?